Solidifying the Fluff
Moderator: Oberlus
Solidifying the Fluff
One of FreeOrion design principle is to create not a realistic space game, but one with a Space Opera feel.
So explanations for different parts of the game, be it combat, ship design, travel or the like have been left to basically the contributor designing the part, considering that we share a common reference set of what is space opera.
I still believe that design would be more interesting if the constraints they have to tackle in-game were more precisely defined.
That is, if we could design, for each part of the technologies involved in the game, the underlying science behind the tech.
Modern science, if we go past what is taught in high school, is very surprising to the common sense and already has a sci-fi feel to the interested layman; starting from a detailed presentation of the most advanced science known to man, fraying then in the more uncharted waters of reasonable hypothesises, continuing into more hypothetical hypothesis and even diving wilfully at the end into the wackiest (though not immersion-breaking), we could build a theoretical framework that would both allow for an incredible sense of wonder and scifi realism, and adapt to the necessities of the game.
If we have a valid explanation for FTL travel, for example, and for the reason it happens in Starlanes, then the day we add to the game some tech that bring more strategy or a new Military Policy that uses a particular aspect of starlane travel, we would already have a general concept of FTL physics that can help introduce these new aspects seamlessly into the game universe.
Also, as already mentioned elsewhere, by creating constraints, they open opportunities for creative ways to solve these constraints, birthing new game ideas and mechanisms in their wake.
Of course, none of the usual contributor is versed in all scientific topics involved in the game.
But for each advanced science, there is at least one (and usually many) scientific mind mastering it; and the power of Free Software is the ability to harness such distributed knowledge and make it a collective intelligence of incomparable power.
Obviously, not all of these scientists will be interested in contributing their ideas to a game. But since solidifying the fluff is adding interest to the game but not necessary for its existence, whatever the number of students or scientists or just passionate people interested, it already will be a help.
To that effect, I contacted a few advanced scientists randomly encountered at work or on the Internet, and as of now at least of Norwegian university teacher is interested in this idea, be it helping (mostly through his students, time being a constraint for him) this vast endeavour of building a more robust fluff theoretical framework for the game, or just providing fluff when needed (and when said fluff intersects with their field of knowledge).
So explanations for different parts of the game, be it combat, ship design, travel or the like have been left to basically the contributor designing the part, considering that we share a common reference set of what is space opera.
I still believe that design would be more interesting if the constraints they have to tackle in-game were more precisely defined.
That is, if we could design, for each part of the technologies involved in the game, the underlying science behind the tech.
Modern science, if we go past what is taught in high school, is very surprising to the common sense and already has a sci-fi feel to the interested layman; starting from a detailed presentation of the most advanced science known to man, fraying then in the more uncharted waters of reasonable hypothesises, continuing into more hypothetical hypothesis and even diving wilfully at the end into the wackiest (though not immersion-breaking), we could build a theoretical framework that would both allow for an incredible sense of wonder and scifi realism, and adapt to the necessities of the game.
If we have a valid explanation for FTL travel, for example, and for the reason it happens in Starlanes, then the day we add to the game some tech that bring more strategy or a new Military Policy that uses a particular aspect of starlane travel, we would already have a general concept of FTL physics that can help introduce these new aspects seamlessly into the game universe.
Also, as already mentioned elsewhere, by creating constraints, they open opportunities for creative ways to solve these constraints, birthing new game ideas and mechanisms in their wake.
Of course, none of the usual contributor is versed in all scientific topics involved in the game.
But for each advanced science, there is at least one (and usually many) scientific mind mastering it; and the power of Free Software is the ability to harness such distributed knowledge and make it a collective intelligence of incomparable power.
Obviously, not all of these scientists will be interested in contributing their ideas to a game. But since solidifying the fluff is adding interest to the game but not necessary for its existence, whatever the number of students or scientists or just passionate people interested, it already will be a help.
To that effect, I contacted a few advanced scientists randomly encountered at work or on the Internet, and as of now at least of Norwegian university teacher is interested in this idea, be it helping (mostly through his students, time being a constraint for him) this vast endeavour of building a more robust fluff theoretical framework for the game, or just providing fluff when needed (and when said fluff intersects with their field of knowledge).
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
As you already said we are rather simulating space opera (so movies etc.) than reality. According to that we would rather need experts for scifi than for physics.
What is more likely: we come up with a new nice mechanism for the game and as the starlane fluff does not fit, we invent new starlane fluff in order to introduce these new aspects seamlessly into the game.LienRag wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:07 pm If we have a valid explanation for FTL travel, for example, and for the reason it happens in Starlanes, then the day we add to the game some tech that bring more strategy or a new Military Policy that uses a particular aspect of starlane travel, we would already have a general concept of FTL physics that can help introduce these new aspects seamlessly into the game universe.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
Indeed.
But bad space opera references previous space opera, while good space opera references physic theories (sometime to violate them outrageously, which doesn't matter as long as they breed them beautiful children).
Good space opera can also references previous space opera, but if they know their physics. That way they choose to respect the laws of physics or not depending on what fits the story/universe, not depending of their own ignorance.
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
Soap opera for me is mostly story-telling ...in space! I don't think Star wars is referencing anything about space related physics. But certainly is good soap opera. Different for (hard) scifi, but that is not what we are doing here. Also a lot of good scifi is not about physics but about society.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
Also a lot of hard scifi does twist physics in impossible ways, as in allowing to reduce the speed of light, considering multiple dimensions, etc.
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
I like my fluff full of hot air. It's what keeps it fluffy.
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
Yes, and ?
Actually, having a Tech reducing the speed of light and imagining the consequences of it could make for a great Tech subtree...
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
I guess you never read Jacques Sadoul's opinion about Star Wars ?Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:22 am
Soap opera for me is mostly story-telling ...in space! I don't think Star wars is referencing anything about space related physics. But certainly is good soap opera. Different for (hard) scifi, but that is not what we are doing here. Also a lot of good scifi is not about physics but about society.
I believe it was never translated, and though it was quite wise and imho spot on it's not a masterpiece of the human intelligence either, so translating it is not a priority...
Anyway he stated that obviously Star Wars is not a science-fiction story, but that we shouldn't roast it anyway because it is clearly sci-fi imagery, and imagery is what stimulates imagination.
So Star Wars not being science-fiction doesn't prevent it to foster development of future SF culture by youngsters dreaming at its scenery...
So, what that mean for the game imho is that we can take its "feel", but that doesn't prevent us to work on the (fictional) scientific architecture behind it.
Re: Solidifying the Fluff
yes, it is space soap opera/fairy tale. that is what i said. that is what we do.LienRag wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 7:23 pmAnyway he stated that obviously Star Wars is not a science-fiction story, but that we shouldn't roast it anyway because it is clearly sci-fi imagery, and imagery is what stimulates imagination.Ophiuchus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 8:22 am
Soap opera for me is mostly story-telling ...in space! I don't think Star wars is referencing anything about space related physics. But certainly is good soap opera. Different for (hard) scifi, but that is not what we are doing here. Also a lot of good scifi is not about physics but about society.
sure, but the prio is just way low.
It has to work as a game > it has to work as sci-fi opera/flavor > it has to work scientifically.
We are currently figuring out the first part of the first part (what is possible/good/bad/ugly with the new mechanics), and content balancing started.
If we had a (fictional) scientific architecture behind the fluff it would also be the first to be sacrified if we need adjustments for balance or gameplay reasons (and rightly so). So (almost?) nobody is willing to invest such a scientific archtitecture. if it stimulates imagination it is certainly good enough for me.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!